22nd April 2025

Mr Martin Newbold
15 Valleyside Road
Hastings
East Sussex
TN35 5AD

Department for Education
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT

22nd April 2025
By recorded signed for Royal Delivery.
Subject: Concealment of Information and Failure to Disclose Under Duty of Transparency
Dear Sir/ Madam
I am writing to raise serious concerns regarding the concealment of information by the Department for Education, specifically in relation to matters impacting my child’s welfare, educational oversight, and inter-agency responsibility. It appears that key information has either been deliberately withheld or not disclosed in a timely or lawful manner.
It is necessary to state without ambiguity:
The conduct of individuals or departments within your authority constitutes OBLIQUE INTENT — whereby harm may not be inflicted through direct instruction, but there exists clear and foreseeable knowledge of the consequences of inaction or policy. Such behavior is actionable in law, both as to cause and to motive. It falls squarely within the definition of institutional negligence.
This failure is not only contrary to the principles of transparency and accountability expected of a public body, but may also represent a breach of statutory obligations, including those outlined under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection legislation. I request clarification as to why the following information has not been made available:
What is your complaint?
I submitted today’s 4/5/2022 Correspondence to the DFE & PHSO all 11 unanswered letters sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery On 1/6/2022
https://form.education.gov.uk/service/Contact_the_Department_for_Education
5/4/22, 5:32 AM Achieve Forms the 25th March 2022, Emily at the PHSO who inform me that Pam Kearns your contact act the DFE had sent a reply to the PHSO stating that Pam Kearns there contact at the PHSO with be in contact by the end of the week under C-2058682 (DOE), which was the week ending 27th March 2022. PHSO has written stating they require a final complaint letter which has not been provided as yet from the DFE. My MP has also written to DFE with an attached letter and a letter Fri, 18 Mar, 2022, 9:57 AM. Which is without reply? Clearly my family is despairing that my child 15 is coming of age in Northern Ireland without a mother or father grandmother to look after her interests or provide her with a proper education. Your response must be in line with obligations which are responses required in Law in regard to Human Rights and Right of Reply (Res (74) 26. I expected a response in regard that there is also no document in their emailed letter from ICO complaint provided 11:32 AM on 23rd March 2022, in respect complaint C-2059461 to PHSO at all in any shape or form. In fact, the nature of the complaint was not met in this review as it is apparent that the school of choice being Frewen College, Northiam, Rye TN31 6NL (As noted in from my correspondence to the PHSO dated 26th Feb 2022 my reference SF801267642GB by 2/6/2022. On the form
5/4/22, 5:32 AM Achieve Forms electronic email as to the wrong address at the direction of PHSO). Instead, it was discussed in this meeting the annex to the Grammar school in Tonbridge Kent in respect to no mentioned of child or father or anyone in the nature of complaint on Wednesday 23rd February 2022 at 2.00 3.00pm Virtual meet on Teams response to initial request (2022-0003500). Clearly any Consultation and statutory review should be a public event and therefore all correspondence placed in the public domain. Why is it then this review panel suggests a £600.00 should be afforded and be unreasonable Under section 12 of the Act? What is apparent from written statements and now legal procedure to Sarah Jennings sent 16th February 2022 at 18:49 at paragraph seven (7) in respect to what is reported: “He mentions a public review panel to which I think he is referring to the internal review. It appears he was expecting to receive an agenda and details of the panel meeting along with names of the panel members.” In fact, the only chair of this Social Service Act of statutory review of consultation began 5th January 2021 as a Statutory Requirement which you confused with FOIR which was active at the same timeline.
The fact that it is written to Shazia HUSSAIN by 3/6 2022 on the form 5/4/22, 5:32 AM Achieve Forms undisclosed participant 25th January 2022 at 11:22 to this ‘secret’ meeting participant, in regard to the share point to the meeting: “I’m unable to access the docs as I don’t appear to have access rights to these docs to see what information has been redacted.” The statutory review mistaken to be an information review is fundamentally about a different subject is clearly written in the chaired review by chair David McVean Education Funding Agency (EFA), Deputy Director (Chair)15th December 2021: “The proposal that was submitted by the Weald of Kent Grammar School in Tonbridge, Kent for the proposal for an annexe that has been recently approved.”. It would also appear there is no ‘definition’ of the problem as outlined at stage 1 as the statutory review conducted by Independent Review of Children Social Care as detailed and alleged flawed in ‘a’ inclusive through to ‘h’ below: a. Sufficient information should be made available to stakeholders to enable them to make informed comments b. Achieving real engagement rather than merely following bureaucratic processes. Consultation responses should usually be published within twelve (12) weeks of the consultation closing. The current children’s4/6 2022 form 5/4/22, 5:32 AM Achieve Forms statutory review starting 5th January 2021. Departments should be clear about how they have come to the decision to consult in a particular way, and senior officials and ministers should be sighted on the considerations taken into account in order to enable them to ensure the quality of consultations. e.) No opportunity of elevation or option of amplification of my initial response. f.) My response does not appear to be online on the Government website as it is stated to ensure transparency and consistency of approach, all consultations should be housed on the Government’s single web platform (GOV.UK). Abiding by clear Policy Framework. g. no opportunity to measure respondents’ response Respondent ‘A’ may have something to add in relation to Respondent ‘B’ and there is no evidence of this procedure h. not been contacted by a Program Officer or provided with Agenda of a subsequent meeting to elevate or amplify my concerns orally review under Health and Social Care Act 2012 CHAPTER 7 (8)(1) and Children Act 1989 CHAPTER 41 and Children Act 1989 CHAPT ER 41.
This complaint, along with the 11 previous letters, has not been answered, which I believe amounts to concealment. Specifically, information has been disclosed indicating that my daughter was in Tonbridge School at the age of 15, when, according to Judge Hollis Court order in Hastings , she was supposed to be in Northern Ireland. Social services were pretending that she was there, as evidenced by the LAC (Looked After Children) documentation and complaint meetings recorded by me at the time and on my YouTube channel. This discrepancy raises serious concerns about the accuracy and transparency of the information provided, and I seek clarification on this matter.

Furthermore, this complaint was submitted as part of a consultation.
Children’s Social Care – Call for Ideas run by the DfE. I made several attempts to locate and be provided with the relevant information, but according to the ICO complaint (IC-159128-T3B1) dated 11 October 2022, this information was not held. However, as per the decision notice, it was stated that it would be provided. Now, in 2025, it has clearly not been provided, even though it should have been included as an evidence base of documents. Where is this information now? As despite the ICO stating “The Commissioner considers that the submissions/responses were clearly held by DfE and at the time the request was made DfE intended to publish this information in Spring 2022 as communicated to the complainant”

This infers that the DFE and PAHO are concealing information.
When I wrote to Kate Edwards PAHO Clearly, now note you are in error supporting not only this foul stench of ‘child abuse’ but a clear data breach in the DfE as clearly spelled out in the ICO decision notice in relation to the 2022-10-11 dated decision notice regarding the DfE DN IC-159128-T3B1 in which it states “Under section 17(1) of the FOIA a public authority that is relying on an exemption to withhold information must, in its refusal notice, state that fact, specify the exemption in question and why the exemption applies. 22. In this case, DfE’s initial refusal notice failed to state that it was relying upon section 22 FOIA in relation to parts of the request. The Commissioner therefore finds that DfE’s refusal of the request breached section 17(1) of the FOIA.” Furthermore, I addressed and asked you to note the matters that Cross-party MPs have written to the newly appointed Education Secretary, Kit Malthouse to note the clear Education Committee Highlighting a ‘clear deterioration’ in standards at both Children’s Services in its area. Clearly an article by Esther Marshall who wrote in the Daily Express on Friday 05:00, Sat, Oct 15, 2022 | UPDATED: 20:45, Sat, Oct 15, 2022 entitled Healthcare is ‘poor quality’: Expats slam ‘appalling’ lifestyle in Ireland. Which does not agree that your assertion that my daughters well being, and healthcare is being catered for when it is described as ‘poor’. Even going so far to write “Expats have slammed the cost of living in Ireland saying it’s “outrageous”. They also claimed the health services in Ireland were “poor quality”.” Your error then is clearly currently without correction, and I can only see from this that you are involved in creating cognitive dissonance. Dissonant cognitions are usually caused by a mismatch in beliefs and behaviors. Festinger’s theory identified three primary triggers, or causes, of cognitive dissonance: forced compliance, decision-making, and effort. I note your disingenuous matchless letter 28th of September 2022 as received today 4th of October 2022. You seem to have, from the two letters in which you stated you have reviewed my letters 10th of September 2022 and 16th of September 2022 and identified and admitted concerns have been raised, but you have followed through providing no correction and, or closure to this, or the cases of one half a million children including my own child in Northern Ireland subject to child abuse, according to the NSPCC report unchallenged and already sent to you and the charge of child laundering and kidnap which you had eyes on, but have not provided satisfactory investigation of the epitome of the case and met it currently with the statement “We don’t have the power to look at them“ I ask you to note that laws and act of laws are changing daily. You do however have the ability to question this crime for yourselves and make referrals as you seem fit to other government departments and police when you suspect crimes have been committed, which I commend to you, there is no evidence of in your response. You have been asked to note that my affidavit and three unanswered letters which all demand reply have not met a single reply or new investigation or telephone call. I therefore demand you overturn your decision 28th of September 2022 in the light of this overwhelming evidence of child abuse; poor health conditions, mental, emotional and physical abuse you obfuscate by way of your single letter you are placing on my daughter’s care welfare and this half a million other children who souls you have a duty to protect. At no point have you made a referral to your manager to investigate your investigation as a matter of complaint. Quite frankly your premiss seems to be that you have ‘no powers of investigation’, must be in error! You subscribe to UK Central Government Complaint Standards which has ten pillars of outstanding standards, which will help organisations learn from complaints so that they can make lasting improvements to public services! And furthermore correctly locate my missing daughter Emily Caterine Smith who It is inferred by this regime in Northern Ireland is still in education until age 25.

Your Sincerely

Martin Newbold.

Attached Enclosers.

• Investigating Local Authority Failures in Child Care
• FOIA Request for Investigations on Little St James and Texas Ranch
• Re: Notification of Assessment Outcome – CASE-20246844 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
• Alleged Deletion of Specific Email Evidence
• Clarifying eGov’s History and Missing Video Insight